Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1887-04-29

Gays Deen 10 boston anu COnsulleu du-
thorities there. He does not say what
authorities he consulted, or what aspects
of the New Haven matter he submitted.
We suppose it must be in respect to the
main point as between himself and the
other members of the council that he
took advice We suppose he means that
he holds, more than ever, that it is right
for councils to reach decisions in such
cases as that at New Haven, and bind
them upon ministers and churches i'll such
way that they shall be final.
We do not object to the appeal to Mas
sachusetts or Boston authorities. The
writer lived in the vicinity of Boston for
several years and is somewhat conversant
with those authorities.
In Dexter's Congregationalism, the old
volume and the new, it is distinctly stated
what functions councils have. GAS all
true Congregational councils are called
to give advice, and for this only, it neces-
sarily follows that it is ddrice purely,
which they give" That seems plain
enough. but there is, purely speaking,
no authority in the result of any council,
also seems plain. This language and the
italics are from the old volume. pages 2lS
and 2l9. In the foot-notcs of that vol
ume are some interesting statements
which we commend to the careful perus-
al of Rev. Mr.. Stebbins. He will see
there the distinction between board of
reference and a council most clearly point
ed out. He will also see there these
words from the court case of Stearns VS..
Bedford, 81 Pickering, Ia: 1.-The result
of a council, of its own intrinsic validity,
is ncrer OblgdtOry upon the pdrtleS. That
decision long since settled the matter for
Massachusetts, and | should suppose
might be common law for Vermont That
decision shows that the result of coun-
ell has no force in law till it is accepted
by the parties calling the council. As set
forth in the Congregational Quarterly,
vol. H., page 62 (article by DIR. \. ii.
Quint and quoted in both the old and
new volumes of Dexter, this again seems
perfectly clear: "If a council has been
properly called; if the subject matter is
such as should come before a council; if
its members are impartial: if its investi-
cations are fair; if its decision is clear,
then its result, rhHe il must Je dd0Hed (by
the parties) before il is IF any oHthoUty,
will Justify either party conforming there
to-" We are at a loss to understand what
person of any ecclesiastical or legal
standing could have been consulted by
Rev. Mr.. Stebbins during his late visit.
Massachusetts, law is certainly against
him. The very form and spirit of Con-
gregationalism is emphatically against
him. If there is still any doubt as to the
New Haven case. take these words from
Dexter. page POP Spy Massachusetts,
law. the decision of a properly consti-
tuted mutual council Gust what we
were at New Haven) that the pas
toral relations ougM to be dissolved Ga lit
tie stronger than our language-''we
deem it eXpedient'') would have precise
ly this effect namely:
Il. 1t would not dissolve the contract.
and. of course. would not dismiss the
pastor.
so. 1t would when accepted and acted
upon by the church and society legally
justify them in treating him as no longer
their pastor, and would be Il good defence
in law against any suit which he might
bring on claim for salary subsequent to
that result of council, provided that re-
suit has been founded upon reason which
the law holds to be valid in such cases"
OF course there could be no dispute at
New Haven in Rev. Mr.. Sargent's case
as he stands. or stood. related to his peo-
church in Adams. Mass. which has 50
urgently called him. and his people. while
they prefer to have him stay. very kindly.
though reluctantly. consent to his going.
Both parties here accept most cordially
the advice or expressed Judgment of
council. Both parties stand in no sense
opposed to each other or any proper ac-
ton of the advisory body. They even
practically announced themselves before
hand as jointly cOnsenting to adopt and
abide by whatever reasonable advice
their council might give. They evident
ly desire no dispute, though mutually
slow and regretful to sunder relation
most satisfactory and most pleasing.
If it should be said that recognized au-
thorities i'm Massachusetts may differ from
such authorities in Connecticut, which
originally gave territorial and religious
settlement to Vermont, we quote from
one of the early expounders of the Say
brook Platform:
IF we conceive of councils as having
jurisdiction (rather than the functions of
an advisory body and consequently jul
dicial authority in any case. endless dis
putes will arise; nor will it be possible
10 reconcile oar ecclesiastical constitution
,cih itself. Such power in councils is
quite inconsistent with the rights and du-
ties of particular churches, clearly and
expressly asserted and maintained by
these churches. - But if we view
councils as helps, cOunselors and advis-
ors. atfording light and assistance for the
conviction, peace and editication of the
churches, and the like. our constitution
will appear in good light, consistent ,cih
dseif, and ogreeobie 10 Tie principleS and
genius Of tie gospel Of CHRIST"
Connecticut Congregationalism, ac-
cording to this exposition, does not differ
from Massachusetts Congregationalism
and we presume to say that Vermont is
loyal to true Congregatiogaism. so far as
she has need of Congregationaism at all,
rather than to Presbyterian methods and
ways, or as one has rather feicitously
characterized the mongrel, the hybrid
species, Presbygationalism.
GRANVILLE lAGER.
Che 1llarbets.